When your president is a complete fraud and con man, the whole country is tarnished - its too late for America to bounce back, we are in end stage capitalism now that Trump and his cronies are siphoning money out of the boundaries his administration establish -no different than Putin and his oligrachs except that America still has some protections in place..
And the "risk index" is idiotic. Basically just companies the creator doesn't like, or is jealous of.
An empty teardrop indicates the death hasn’t been avenged; a half-filled one that someone else killed the killer; and only a full teardrop means that person killed the killer.
What is their motivation? What are they trying to achieve?
I think it’s fair game to point out that the the 30 under 30 hype list is just that: hype. And there’s often very little substance underneath hype. And sometimes there’s outright deceit under it.
I have encountered many instances of fraud being highlighted. Generally it is a valuable journalistic service that I have no problem with. Most don't send the message that they have a vindictive axe to grind like this one does.
100% SATIRICAL — SCORES ARE FICTIONAL AND DO NOT REFLECT REAL-WORLD FRAUD RISK
?
Personally I think it’s not a bad thing to be a little skeptical about brand new companies with double digit billion dollar valuations. If they’re legit they can more than withstand a little satirical dig.
Like sure, is it a VS code fork with agents stapled to it? Yes. But are they on the same scale as most of the people mentioned? Ehh probably not.
It reads more like a hit piece from someone with a grudge against random SF companies than anything else.
To my reading the premise of the site is pretty straightforward: 30 Under 30 is a warning sign, not a positive signal. Therefore, as a company with 4 founders who were in 30 Under 30, Cursor is a risk.
It’s a silly little satire site, there’s a danger of reading into it too deeply.
If there's no wrong-doing, then there's nothing of which to be ashamed.
The first section that showcases the fraud that has been committed is something I have no problem with, just as I have no issue with web3isgoinggreat.com. The "at risk" section is based on a mathematical/algorithmic joke. This is explained by the "methodology" section below it, which makes it clear that the equation used to calculate "risk" here is not entirely unlike the Drake equation for the probability of extra-terrestrial life.[1]
Forbes 30u30 is a clarion call for the most ambitiously Machiavellian among us.
They’re not subject to any different incentives than the rest of us. But they’d certainly have a higher rate of sociopaths and more garden variety Machiavellis than genpop.
> Manipulation & Deceit: Using charm, lies, and calculated moves to influence others.
> Lack of Empathy: A cold, detached, and unemotional demeanor that disregards the feelings of others.
> Strategic Long-Term Planning: Unlike impulsive psychopaths, high-Machs are patient, planning, and can delay gratification to ensure success.
> Cynical Worldview: Believing that people are inherently weak, untrustworthy, and that "the ends justify the means".
> Low Affect: Possessing limited emotional experience, often leading to a detached, "puppet-master" role rather than seeking the spotlight.
The only traits that seem bad are the lying and lack of empathy. The rest seem neutral (low emotional experience is something we hackers tend to identify with), sensible (random people tend to be untrustworthy), or admirable (delayed gratification).
Using charm and calculated moves to influence others isn’t a bad thing. It’s the basis of flattery.
I wish there was a positive version of Machiavellian which cut the lies and lack of empathy. Those are genuinely bad.
Starts looking like low effort libel, punching down, more than some clever joke x a statistics exercise
Put another way: the Drake equation, this ain’t.
The impulse to label everything a “startup” and thus a smolbean little guy is fascinating.
I consider myself a good judge of character, because not one of the one's I've invested in has committed fraud!
I don't have strong feelings about the watch list (use and like several of the products on there so not that worried about them all being frauds), and I think the concept is kind of humorous
Seems easy to read the wrong way though
> Mercor — 3x on 30u30
Interesting, I only know this company because they’re the leading spammer hitting my inbox in the AI job board category.
But Cursor? Why they are operating in a risky space on tech that is all new what ethical things did they do to warrent inclusion in this shame board?
Lets not tarnish folks either -cancel culture is worrisome there
In section The 30u30 Risk Index there is some css bug, text is in long lines outside of boxes.
It’s gotten to the point that legit folks are wanting to steer clear of them simply because of the negative stigma with being seen as an XuX grifter.
yes, numerous 30u30 have committed frauds, and yes this list is a paid list. but it's also full of other people who have been duped by what this list represents. compounding memes at the expense of truth just creates more problems than it solves
> wiping $40B and several people's life savings
Okay, you shouldn't dump your life savings into a cryptocurrency that claims to be doing innovative things in the first 2 days. But if that's true that guy ruined multiple people's life's work. That's a bit mean-spirited, wouldn't you say?
Ultimately it's one guy's opinion. It's not like he's going to ruin these people's lives or businesses.
I think a reason it so over represented by douchebags is because the awardees — unlike McArthur winners — are very involved in the nomination process and work to game the system.
https://thegenzeoclub.substack.com/p/forbes-30-under-30-nomi...
I hope you will remember this the next time your employer asks you to build an AI moderation, credit evaluation, or anti-fraud system that will harm much larger numbers of innocent people far than one mean website.
Alternatively, you think it's okay to make up stuff about young people because they got a seed round. That's stock-human behavior but it's not rational or kind.
My point, as I think was clear, was that criticising the founders of billion dollar companies via satire is not “punching down” by any means. Nor is it libel. You are throwing words around without meaning.
(and “young people”, there we go with the smolbean stuff again. If they’re too young to face criticism then they’re too young to be CEOs of billion dollar companies. You can’t have it both ways)
"There we go with the smolbean stuff again": I never said that or anything like it. You're putting an argument in my mouth and then swatting it down. Twice now.
"If they're too young for criticism they're too young to be CEOs of billion dollar companies. You can't have it both ways." Scroll the watchlist. Most of those people aren't running billion dollar companies. That's the whole point. I definitely agree not all CEOs are good people and I generally agree the irrational argument all CEOs no matter of age are more likely to be net-destructive to society. That's the most extreme version of what you're saying, and we likely agree on it.
So we agree the conduct towards Cursor, and whatever other companies you want to name, is fair game. The only question is whether that extends to literally everyone on the list. I don't think it does. That's it.
Flattery doesn't have to be calculated.
As to calculated moves, distinct things can fit the same labels. Intent, context, and execution are all important.
Same applies to many other traits in the list. Low achievements people lie right and left just as well. Are cynical when convenient, yada yada.
Basically, the list says that these 30s are just like an average Joe, but smart. Which should be a surprise to no one.
So they're smart enough to be calculated and stupid enough not to be so calculated that they look untrustworthy.
Not everyone lies or is cynical when convenient. Skill, rate of success, and personal ethics are all orthogonal concepts.
Above all, intent matters. I do not treat someone who I perceive to be manipulative the same as I would other people.
That's my point exactly. I just also assume the % of liars in 30s is the same as in general population by default.
Even if you are right coincidentally (which I wouldn't be so sure about), that's still poor argument assuming you realize your belief in what optimal strategy is what it is - just an educated guess.